Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Former observatory restored, Sierra Nevada, Andalusia, Spain.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Former observatory restored, Sierra Nevada, Andalusia, Spain.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2014 at 19:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination You liked this one ? Maybe you will like this other too... :) -- Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Please don't get me wrong, but I think that it is quite boring to nominate a wider view of the same thing on the day the other image was promoted. At most one of these pictures should be FP and by only uploading your version after Slaunger's image was promoted, users did not have the (potential) chance to say "I know that there is a more interesting view on offer" and oppose the first nomination. Frankly, promoting both views shot within the same hour would be pretty absurd. I don't think it would be the best for commons to protect a friend's image from own competition by delaying the upload of an image (perhaps that wasn't the intention, but it might be a possible way of understanding the observation). So I oppose because we already have a very similar image as FP. --DXR (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)- You have the right to oppose, but your reasons for that are completely out. Please notice that we have at least THREE featured pictures of the Neuschwanstein Castle, exactly from the same point of view. It is not the same picture at all, and please, please, don't patronize neither give me lessons with that tone, thank you. Frankly, I'm not sure I care about what you think it would be the best for "Commons". Please consider I could do better if I were in the way you assume: for instance nominate this picture (which deserves a normal FP review IMO) during the process of Slaunger's picture evaluation, and of course I did not do so. Conclusion: you have obviously no sense of humor at all, as Slaunger was just next to me when we took our pictures. Hey man, that's just fun ! I wish my nomination to be assessed as others, qualities and flaws. Thank you very much.--Jebulon (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you agree that it is best to have a well-filled category to judge the quality of an image? I think it is helpful to be able to compare which images of a subject are available in order to judge whether the view offered is the best or whether it is featurable. Here we had your image (not your nomination, I understand not directly competing with that) waiting and being uploaded and nominated just after the other nomination was finished. Yes I didn't actually take part in the first nomination, but I simply don't think that is a very transparent thing to do. I also think that later FPs of the same subject must offer a significant improvement in quality or other factors. I know not everybody would agree with that, but I think it is not an unreasonable approach to nominations. Now you can of course say that the hill is new, but imo that hill is not very special and has little wow. If this image get promoted, it is because of the building and here we have a similar angle and similar light conditions. I also don't like the Neuschwanstein triple FP (and I would actually have taken that as a negative in the later votes), but we had years between the nominations and not hours, right? --DXR (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, I just saw that you don't want to discuss any further. Sorry. --DXR (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- (EC)And on a more general note: I don't see how humor is relevant here (I admit that this probably proves your point :D). Because we are so few, we have a responsibility to choose the images that are representative of all our work here, yet all we photographers are always in some sort of conflict of interest between wanting to get our images getting promoted (and we all do to some degree) and making sure that the promoted images are the very best. I would much rather see a completely different image of yours being nominated at this place (and I am sure that there are many that I can gladly support) and I simply can't understand the motivation for this nomination. Perhaps I assumed bad faith in my initial statement and I can see that it might have been too provocative. --DXR (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- You have the right to oppose, but your reasons for that are completely out. Please notice that we have at least THREE featured pictures of the Neuschwanstein Castle, exactly from the same point of view. It is not the same picture at all, and please, please, don't patronize neither give me lessons with that tone, thank you. Frankly, I'm not sure I care about what you think it would be the best for "Commons". Please consider I could do better if I were in the way you assume: for instance nominate this picture (which deserves a normal FP review IMO) during the process of Slaunger's picture evaluation, and of course I did not do so. Conclusion: you have obviously no sense of humor at all, as Slaunger was just next to me when we took our pictures. Hey man, that's just fun ! I wish my nomination to be assessed as others, qualities and flaws. Thank you very much.--Jebulon (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll consider changing to support only if the other one is delisted. -- Ram-Man 21:18, 16 November (UTC)
- Quote: "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others." It has long been the case that multiple similar images should not both be featured. Pictures must set themselves apart from others in some way. Otherwise, why shouldn't this, this, this, and this all be featured in addition to this. It's too much. -- Ram-Man 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Sorry, two "oppose" for illicit (and stupid) reasons (i.e. Clearly not in accordance with the rules) are enough, I don't want to initiate neither participate in any other discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
